This study evaluated the remineralization potential of modern resin-based "bioactive" materials (RBMs) compared to calcium silicate cements (CSMs) in inducing dentine remineralization through mineral deposition. The materials tested included ProRoot MTA, MTA Angelus, Biodentine, TheraCal LC, ACTIVA BioACTIVE Base/Liner, ACTIVA Presto, and Predicta Bioactive Bulk. The evaluation was conducted using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) to assess mineral deposition at the dentine-material interface and on the dentine and material surfaces after immersion in simulated body fluid (DPBS). The Ca/P ratios were also calculated for all tested groups. The results showed that ProRoot MTA, MTA Angelus, Biodentine, and TheraCal LC exhibited significant surface precipitation, filling the gap between the material and the dentine. In contrast, the RBMs showed only slight ability to induce mineral precipitation, with none of them remineralizing the dentine-material interface. The study concluded that modern RBMs are less effective than CSMs in inducing dentine remineralization, and CSMs are the only option for inducing a possible reparative process at the dentin-material interface.This study evaluated the remineralization potential of modern resin-based "bioactive" materials (RBMs) compared to calcium silicate cements (CSMs) in inducing dentine remineralization through mineral deposition. The materials tested included ProRoot MTA, MTA Angelus, Biodentine, TheraCal LC, ACTIVA BioACTIVE Base/Liner, ACTIVA Presto, and Predicta Bioactive Bulk. The evaluation was conducted using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) to assess mineral deposition at the dentine-material interface and on the dentine and material surfaces after immersion in simulated body fluid (DPBS). The Ca/P ratios were also calculated for all tested groups. The results showed that ProRoot MTA, MTA Angelus, Biodentine, and TheraCal LC exhibited significant surface precipitation, filling the gap between the material and the dentine. In contrast, the RBMs showed only slight ability to induce mineral precipitation, with none of them remineralizing the dentine-material interface. The study concluded that modern RBMs are less effective than CSMs in inducing dentine remineralization, and CSMs are the only option for inducing a possible reparative process at the dentin-material interface.